last night, The War on Britain’s Jews?, was excellent and informative. Whilst we don’t often stray off of the BBC on this blog, I couldn’t help but wonder as I watched, why doesn’t the BBC do stuff like this?
And then I read Littlejohn’s piece in last Friday’s Daily Mail, in which he wrote:
A couple of years ago when the BBC approached me to make what they called an ‘authored documentary’ on any subject about which I felt passionate, I proposed an investigation into modern anti-Semitism to coincide with the 70th anniversary of Cable Street last October.
My thesis was that while the Far Right hasn’t gone away, the motive force behind the recent increase in anti-Jewish activity comes from the Fascist Left and the Islamonazis.
It was an idea which vanished into the bowels of the commissioning process, never to return. Eventually the Beeb told me that they weren’t making any more ‘authored documentaries’.
I couldn’t help wondering what might have happened if I’d put forward a programme on ‘Islamophobia’. It would probably have become a six-part, primetime series and I’d have been up for a BAFTA by now.
But I persevered and Channel 4 picked up the project. You can see the results on Monday night.
QED. Time and again Channel 4 produces investigative programmes, from a variety of perspectives, of the sort that the BBC like to think that they do.
Sadly, the reality at the BBC is that we now have a lobotomised Panorama-lite, cut to barely thirty minutes, divested of quality journalists like John Ware, presented a la Tonight with Trevor McDonald by the somewhat lighweight Jeremy Vine.
Update: Commenter George Whyte points out that the programme has now made it on to Youtube, in six parts:
Part 1,
Part 2,
Part 3,
Part 4,
Part 5 and
Part 6,
for the benefit of those who missed it, including you Beeboids out there.
Hat-tip to Marc of USS Neverdock for the Daily Mail link.
What did the BBC expect when they approached Richard Littlejohn?? Bizarre.
As far as the C4 programme went I felt a little uncomfortable with Littlejohn presenting. It seems to be in the same vein as rich white blokes in the lefty media decrying rampant institutional racism or Islamophobia on behalf of the poor downtrodden minorities, largely as a vehicle for pushing their own wider ridiculous politics.
Is Littlejohn really doing this because there’s a major problem or because a bit of hysteria drums up readership and support for his wider anti immigration/pro US foreign policy (which should certainly get an airing on impartial TV but not piggy backed on other issues). If there is rampant antisemitism sweeping the nation my Jewish mates are largely unbothered (of which there are plenty being North London born and bred, working in the City and a Spurs fan). Why can’t we have a Jewish presenter? Maybe the Beeb could do this properly?
Cockney
I feel very differently to you. I think it was excellent to have a non-Jewish presenter, because, as Littlejohn suggested, people simply assume that anti-semitism is perceived as a problem only by Jews.
I didn’t perceive any pro-American or anti-immigration agenda in the programme and although littlejohn may be wealthy, his background of living in the East end certainly qualifies him to speak with some authority on the area.
I’m delighted that your Jewish friends are unaware of a rise in anti-semitism. Would that all British Jews could say the same.
Fran, I think my point would be that rightly or wrongly Littlejohn is such a caricature that a neutral would wonder at his motives.
For instance would he overplay the anti-Isreali policy motives for antisemitism (prime perpetrators presumably leftists and Muslims) and underplay the straight anti “immigrant”/”unBritish culture” motives (prime perpetrators presumably rightist nationalists) or indeed the traditional “Jewish cabals control all the best jobs for their own self interest” motives (prime perpetrators presumably poorer people unhappy with inequality). This would allow him to attack his usual targets without alienating his core readership.
C4 might need his name to guarantee viewing figures, the BBC without such “market pressures” could do a more rigorous study from a basis of impartiality.
btw I’m not trying to downplay antisemitism in any way and I’ve certainly noticed an upsurge both in the anti-Isreali faction as the ME situation worsens and the “Jewish cabal” section as top level wages rise in London (don’t really move in ultranationalist circles). Clearly this prejudice is horrendous and ludicrous but I’ve perceived it as coming from a very low base. Perhaps I’m wrong.
Cockney: “C4 might need his name to guarantee viewing figures”
I doubt that the Littlejohn name made much difference to the viewing figures for a typical Monday evening Channel 4 documentary slot.
Cockney: “…the BBC without such “market pressures” could do a more rigorous study from a basis of impartiality”
You’re such a persistent apologist for the BBC Cockney – to the extent that, to coin a phrase, ‘a neutral would wonder at his motives’…
I suggest that you view the tripe served up by some of the contributors on the Channel 4 comment website and then tell me that there is no problem with AntiSemitism in the UK today.
As Kissinger said, “even paranoids have enemies”.
Those who single out Israel and Zionism as the major locus of evil in the world that needs boycotting need to look at their antecedents. In terms of the left this is a continuation of Communist antiZionism and the practice of antisemitism.
Historically these same positions have been used by those who hate the Jews over the centuries. True the industrialised slaughter of third of the Jewish people made this position a tad unfashionable for a while, but now that we are all living in the post modern era, it all about competing narratives. Tell that to my late father’s family.
As this blog continues to show, the insidious attacks against the Jews continue, funded by the captive BBC license payers of the UK are a fact of life that have to be opposed every inch of the way.
Andrew, I’d have thought Littlejohn’s name has a certain draw? Be interested to see the figures. I bet he charges more than a more anonymous presenter??
Well, the plug in the Daily Mail would have helped, but the Daily Mail demographic is hardly the target market either for C4 or for Littlejohn’s message about the apparent anti-semitism of many on the left (and their fellow travellers of the religious persuasion) – and the Littlejohn name is not likely to appeal to the left-wing chatterati.
… the anti-Isreali policy motives for antisemitism (prime perpetrators presumably leftists and Muslims) and underplay the straight anti “immigrant”/”unBritish culture” motives (prime perpetrators presumably rightist nationalists) or indeed the traditional “Jewish cabals control all the best jobs for their own self interest” motives (prime perpetrators presumably poorer people unhappy with inequality).
Cockney | 10.07.07 – 3:32 pm
Either of these motives are merely an excuse for plain old fashioned Jew hatred – people don’t need an excuse to hate Jews – although some kind of “motive” is useful if you don’t want to appear to be an old fashioned antisemite.
Antisemitism is indeed the oldest hatred and Israel is indeed the “Jew among nations”. Any and all talk of causes and motives is pure sophistry.
Talk of antisemitism being caused by Israel’s actions is as useful and as realistic as blaming Islamist terrorism on poverty, alienation or the UK’s policies on Iraq, and Israel’s actions of course.
Islam hates us all and wants to kill us.
Antisemites hate Jews and would like to see Israel destroyed.
It’s as simple as that – no need to complicate the issue any further.
I’ve uploaded this on to tube if anyone wants to watch it. Its in 6 parts due to the time limits
this is the first part –
click on more from this user for the rest
LITTLEJOHN: Saving the planet while the English swim for their supper
[…]
Live Earth has to be the most fatuous fundraiser ever. Where is the money going?
Sorry if I sound like a heretic, but while I accept we shouldn’t deliberately pollute and do our best to recycle our rubbish, I don’t accept that ‘climate change’ is the biggest threat to the planet.
That would be global Islamist terrorism right now. Its stated intention is to kill us and destroy our way of life.
If rock singers and TV stars want to do something constructive, why don’t they have a series of shows against jihad?
Madonna could kick it off in Iran, but the bare flesh and conical bras would have to go. Graham Norton could host the Kabul concert, though he might be lucky to get out without having a brick wall pushed on top of him.
I’m sure rappers like Puff Doggy would go down a storm with the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia, given their mutual enthusiasm for women’s rights, homosexuality and drive-by executions.
Send the Spice Girls to Lahore. They’d look very fetching in designer burkas. The whole event could be beamed round the world by the BBC, being careful not to mention any connection between terrorism and Islam, perish the thought.
Of course, it ain’t gonna happen. They’d rather work themselves into a lather about the ozone layer than confront the number one clear and present danger to our lives.
Cockney
I’m really not sure it’s possible to downplay the ‘anti-israel/zionism which spills over into anti-semitism’ just now. Nick Cohen’s contribution alone demonstrated that, although Littlejohn and Cohen did seem like The Odd Couple chatting away on that sofa.
The sheer irrationality of white liberal middle-class hatred of Israel feels to me like anti-semitism in itself. I remember (and possibly so do you) the campaign against apartheid in South Africa. It was nothing compared to this, although the injustices suffered by black South Africans seem to me to have been infinitely greater. (And the people responsible for their suffering far more obviously identifiable!)
Anyhow, whatever Littlejohn’s shortcomings, the fact that Johann Hari thinks that the most noteworthy point about the programme was that Littlejohn presented it
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1152
brings a smile to the lips and a lightness to the step!
Well I thought it was an excellent program, and Littlejohn was not noticeably tabloid or biased in his presentation. In fact, if the BBC had the guts or the inclination to tackle this subject, the C4 program would have easily passed the impartiality test.
The problem is that the BBC are part of the Guardian-reading, left-wing-in-denial group of anti-semites, so are hardly likely to want to publicise the issue.
I agree with Fran and Towcestarian. But isn’t it interesting how Cockney (and many like him) won’t listen to the evidence – they just react according to their own prejudices about Littlejohn. I sent a complaint to the Sunday Times for billing the programme as ‘a right rant’. The ST critic wrote that Littlejohn was “in full rant mode”. Absolute rubbish. But the kind of rubbish that weak minded people go along with. It’s becoming rather horribly evident that the left only oppose anti-semitism when they can bash the right for racism. Now the far left have taken it up they don’t seem to care one jot what attacks are carried out on Jews in this country. On the contrary they pretend nothing’s going on. How bad is that when when it means ignoring or excusing sales of Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf? Good for Littlejohn – he made a brave stab at a very difficult topic. But overall I feel very pessimistic.
Fabulous programme, all the more so knowing that it would get the guardianistas all worked into a “why is a racist presenting a programme about racism” rant (see Hari link above)
Yes, it should have been shown on the Beeb, but of course there would have been howls of incredulity at any planning meeting which even remotely suggested this theme and presenter.
No wonder the idea was buried. Too busy planning programmes in which “reporters” infiltrate the BNP to prove they are racist (quel surprise)
Let’s face it, the beeb is so entrenched in its own left wing guardian islamofriendly agenda that it is probably too late to stop the rot.
One of the apparent contradictions; that antisemitism has moved from the political right to the left, is actually no such thing. There is an erroneous BBC promoted meme that the BNP and their antecedents the National Socialists are ‘right wing’. Actually I’m still waiting to hear the BNP promote laissez-faire economics or social libertarianism.
Place the so-called “far-right” on their correct left-hand side of the spectrum, and the modern trendy lefty anti-semites become simply the most recent examples of this (far-left) tradition.
Come off it Andrew, Cockney is hardly a blind defender of the BBC.
Littlejohn and others (Clarkson for example, who I find way too anti-US) are old fashioned rabble rousers. Nothing wrong with that but in the post-modern world when even the message giver is de-constructed then it becomes important that he or she has had some personal experience of anti-semitism.
The BBC understands this and it is interesting to note that those who are allowed recently to make the strong comments, that we all want to hear, against Islamic fundamentalism are those who have been there and since burnt the T-shirt.
Nothing wrong with that but in the post-modern world when even the message giver is de-constructed then it becomes important that he or she has had some personal experience of anti-semitism.
I’m sorry Peregrine but this is absolute, prize bullshit. Go on Slasher delete me!
Peregrine
When I read your comment about Littlejohn the thought ‘damned if he is and damned if he isn’t’ came to mind.
I understand the point you’re making, but then, Littlejohn and the head of the recent government committee investigating anti-semitism in the UK both testify that people assumed that if they showed concern about anti-semitism they must be Jews. Suggesting that anti-Semitism can be of interest only to Jews.
To my knowledge within the past month, the CEO of a Christian organisation which challenges biased and untrue reporting about Israel has had a similar exchange with the editor of a Catholic online newsletter, who took two or three emails to understand that Christians who had no ethnic Jewish roots could possibly be actively involved in speaking out for Israel.
People who want to dismiss the programme’s contents will do so and find some excuse for it.
However, if, like Littlejohn and myself, you are a non-Jew who dares to challenge the sort of routine lies which are told about Israel around liberal, pink tinged dinner tables, then you will certainly experience just a tiny snippet of the hatefilled hostility which is routinely directed at Jews who refuse to condemn Israel strongly enough.
As a regular poster on my local newspaper forum, I can assure you that anti-semitism is alive and well.
The lefties, and Muslims in Bradford, spend a great amount of time calling me a ‘Jew rodent’, as well as the more familiar Zionazi.
I haven’t the heart to tell them, I’m not Jewish, just pissed off with the view of the Pali situation given by the likes of our wonderful BBC.
Oscar, you are right, it is prize bovine dung but it is what is expected these days.
As a facile example look at the BBC employing Gary Lineker as a football pundit. He doesn’t bring anything extra to the commentary that a skilled sports journalist couldn’t, perhaps his closeness to the sport actually means that something is lost for the fans. But where are the skilled journalists, the even handed commentators or people who have an appreciation for the game from a fan’s perspective?
Even-handedness has been turned into support for the opposition and the fans have been left out in the cold (or treated like cattle).
If a documentary is going to be aired that challenges the media view then the only way they are going to listen if it is carries the weight of an experience they cannot deny.
“But isn’t it interesting how Cockney (and many like him) won’t listen to the evidence – they just react according to their own prejudices about Littlejohn.”
Well possibly yeah, but that’s human nature. If Polly Toynbee presented a ‘factual’ programme on the evils of excessive executive pay would you listen to the ‘facts’ or would you assume it was just biased lefty b*llocks? I know I’d go for the latter view (although from working in corporate finance I know there are genuine issues with executive pay that a lefty might genuinely stumble on amidst an ideological rant).
Personally the programme certainly inspired me to find out more about the problem – my issue was not the tone but that it was a bit qualitative (you can ‘prove’ pretty much anything from selecting a few interviewees and press cuttings, we were told anti-semitic incidents had doubled but from what base etc etc).
So when Andrew says “I couldn’t help but wonder as I watched, why doesn’t the BBC do stuff like this?” I’d say “I couldn’t help but wonder as I watched, why doesn’t the BBC do stuff like this but in a manner more convincing to the viewing public as a whole?”.
I’ve just received a long email from David Hutcheon, the TV editor at the Sunday Times in response to my complaint at dismissing Littlejohn’s programme as a ‘right rant’. As you know I totally disagree with the idea that Littlejohn should have been barred from making this programme because he isn’t Jewish or because of his known political opinions. Littlejohn’s programme was well researched, well argued and was not a rant. To discredit it’s content on the basis of prejudice against Littlejohn is just another weapon used by the left who want to suppress the truth about the rise of anti-semitism and discredit any analysis that implicates them. In fact it is well documented that the new anti-semitism has been fuelled by far left groups who have formed an unholy alliance with Islamist groups like Hizbollah and Hamas.
However I was impressed that Hutcheon took the time to write such a full response and actually took on board my complaint – something I have never ever experienced from the BBC after many years of sending in complaints. Here is what Mr Hutcheon has to say.
Firstly, before I am accused of anything, let me explain my position: I, too, deplore the rise of anti-semitism in Britain, and I also deplore prejudice and violence against any ethnicity, culture, religion, community, minority or any other grouping.
However, this is the television section, where we review programmes rather than make political points of our own. Given this, shooting the messenger is one of the things we are entitled to do, regardless of the message they are trying to get over, if their competence should be called into question. So while Richard Littlejohn is quite right to raise the worrying incidence of increased intolerance towards the Jewish community, we have to retain our right to criticise the programme if it deserves it.
The main criticisms are, simply, is Littlejohn the correct person to put forward this argument, and is he competent at stating his case? I have to say no to each of these questions. When it came the facts, he stated them baldly; but when he came to creating a hypothesis to explain the attacks, he came up short. He decided it was the left that was to blame, but had no evidence to show for it. He was shoehorning an hour’s worth of his own prejudices into a programmes on a very worrying subject.
The left were encouraging Muslims to attack Jews, he said. Using his logic, BNP thugs who desecrate synagogues with swastikas are being encouraged to do so by the left. It was obvious from the start he was using attacks on Jews to launch another of his logic-free polemics against something he enjoys baiting. Such an argument might have its place in the pages of the Mail, but it’s not going to wash on television.
Although he is no fan of the BNP, he has gone on record many, many times as a supporter of Tony Martin, a BNP member, and his enthusiasm for shooting gypsies. His radio show fell foul of the broadcasting authorities for inciting violence. He has his pet hates, some of them individuals, some of them cultures and communities. But if he attacks one community, what authority does he have to turn round and argue against attacks on another community? Our critics felt not enough to warrant a positive preview.
I don’t think we dismissed the programme, and I believe the preview was fair, but I take issue with your use of “discredit” and “delegitimise”. We don’t delegitimise Littlejohn’s case but I would argue that the case is undermined by having Richard Littlejohn present it. Had a serious journalist presented this programme, and done it well, rather than a columnist known only for his ability to rant just about coherently, we would have given it an entirely different preview.
I personally think the most obvious indication of how shoddy this documentary was is there in the title (The War On Britain’s Jews?). If there is a single person on the planet who could explain what the question mark is doing, they can have my job. It makes almost as much sense as your use of the word “his” to describe our critics, when all the names on the page (Sally Kinnes, Sarah Dempster and Victoria Segal) are female.
I don’t take lightly the rise of violence against group in society, but my job here is to fairly preview television programmes.
its made it to youtube for any body that missed it.
Oscar | 11.07.07 – 8:26 am,
Well done. This may be a record. I don’t know of anyone who has received such a detailed personal response following a complaint to a journalist. I certainly never have.
Anyone from the BBC watching this? I rarely complain to the BBC but I did complain over its seeming obliviousness of the fact that some people were using its forums on the Johnston issue to attack Israel while supporters of Israel were denied right of reply on forums such as Have Your Say – which was transformed into an exclusive BBC Have Our Say in support of Johnston.
I was not granted the courtesy of a response – not even an automated one.
george whyte | 11.07.07 – 8:27 am,
Thanks for the link. Anyone know how to access the rest of the programme?
Thanks Bryan – I’ve never experienced such a detailed and quick response either. Certainly never from the BBC. Sad tho’ that David Hutcheon’s response was full of nonsense really going on about the question mark in the programme’s title (which was probably a C4 decision rather than a Littlejohn idea) and the rather ludicrous attack on my use of a generic ‘his’ in my complaint. (all the more stupid as he is after all a bloke!) This was my original complaint by the way:
I was appalled at your dismissal in yesterday’s ‘Critic’s choice’ of Richard Littlejohn’s documentary about the rise in anti-semitic attacks in this country as simply a “right rant”. Like the rest of the public I haven’t seen Richard Littlejohn’s documentary yet, but it is clear that your critic is already doing his best to discredit it with the use of demonising terms like “rant”. What about some real concern about these racist attacks, instead of shooting the messenger? The disturbing attempt to delegitimise Littlejohn’s case in advance is itself a demonstration of how little the plight of Britain’s Jewish community concerns the fashionable media. I never thought I’d live to see the rise of anti-semitism again in this country, but unfortunately there are now many signs that this is indeed the case. The tone of your critic’s entry is a very ominous sign indeed.
Oscar, thank you for sharing Mr. Hutcheon’s interesting and fulsome reply with us. He’s right when he says
“I personally think the most obvious indication of how shoddy this documentary was is there in the title (The War On Britain’s Jews?). If there is a single person on the planet who could explain what the question mark is doing, they can have my job.”
– I can’t see the point of that question mark either…
As for the rightness or otherwise of Littlejohn, I’m just glad that someone, anyone, has done it! Littlejohn may well be a rabble rouser (of the sort of rabble that doesn’t get much of a look in on the BBC, mind, that they also pay for), but better that Littlejohn does it than that no one does it, as has turned out to be the case with the BBC.
I noticed that Hutcheon’s knee was quite overactive with all the jerking. He abhors anti-Semitism – but immediately pairs with an abhorrence of discrimination against anyone. Hell, why stick to the subject when one has so much self-justification to spout.
I think its a good documentary.
I think we see anti-semetism as coming from a few streams.
1) Jews are not-XYZ other religion
2) Jews are not XYZ culture
Which are the classical pure right wing anti semitic arguments.
3) Jews control the world
The paranoid argument; and its leftist manifestations
4) Jews are economicly opressing the common man.
5) Jews and their Jewy state are opressing the pali’s and doing so in an especially bad jewish way.
6) Jews control the US which is opressing the rest of the world in an especially bad jewish way.
I think arguments 5/6 and at a deeper level argument 2 are the key drivers.
I think littlejohn and C4 did alot of good in publicising this issue.
I’ve come here from numerous other threads on the programme. [MCAP, Digital Spy etc] appalled at the lack of rational discussion – mostly anti-Semitic name calling!
One thing nobody mentioned, and would not respond to my comments about, was John Mann’s contribution. The fact is, Littlejohn haters could take him right out of the programme and just listen to the comments of John Mann, the Manchester Chief Constable, Nick Cohen, the rabbi at the gravesides etc. etc., and all of them totally backed up what Littlejohn was saying.
The New Statesman editor Wibly came over as a prize prat not even worth talking to, and Tony Greenstein was, well, Tony Greenstein – what would one expect from him?
Interesting remark from Mr Hutcheon in Oscar’s post – Oscar | 11.07.07 – 8:26 am |
‘Although he is no fan of the BNP, he has gone on record many, many times as a supporter of Tony Martin, a BNP member, and his enthusiasm for shooting gypsies.’
As I recall it Tony Martin was subject of a number of burglaries by gypsies.
Anyone who has had to deal with gyspies on a professional level knows that the ‘lucky white heather’ and ‘fortune telling’ image couldn’t be further from the truth.
I was born in Manchester, was part of their Jewish community, have worked with the BBC based in Manchester and have experienced antisemitism of the most unbelievable kind whilst working both at Manchester University and in inner city Greater Manchester schools in the last decade.
I found that the programme was just the tip of the iceberg, that many many attacks on Jews by Muslims in Manchester – and yes by the left as well – go uninvestigated by the authorities because of political correctness and that the BNP, however odious, are now irrelevant to the attacks on the Jews of my former area.
Because of all this, I emigrated to Israel last year and the more I see and hear of what goes on in Brtain, the more worried I become.